Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rising Military Dissent  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1327 times:

What do you think about this?

***

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. [..]

After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers–most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.


Source: The Nation


NO URLS in signature
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1316 times:

Don't read too much into it. The vast majority of the military supports the war in Iraq and would never think of joining such a group/organization.

User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1308 times:

Quoting KSYR (Reply 1):
The vast majority of the military supports the war in Iraq and would never think of joining such a group/organization.

Well they also don't have much of a choice.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our servicemen are discouraged and are starting to wonder why they're risking their lives and dying out there, as in "what's the purpose?" A good amount of them thought they were going in there because of WMDs, and we all know that isn't true now. So it's not really too surprising.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1303 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
What do you think about this?



Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
"from the Article Quoted": has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers–

Ohhhh, nearly a thousand!!!! Holy crap TBar!!!! Ohh, the humanity!   

We've got 140,000 troops on the ground over there, another million or so been there done that, in all branches of the military, so we're talking about what .001% here . . .

Damn man, I could find that kind of dissent in my own command ten years ago.

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 2):
So it's not really too surprising

No it isn't, but NOT for the reasons you stipulate. You underestimate the American serviceperson, and you short sheet them and their intelligence all in one post. Well done.   



EDIT: Nice to have you back posting TBar.  thumbsup 

[Edited 2006-12-16 17:37:38]

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1287 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Damn man, I could find that kind of dissent in my own command ten years ago.

Hell I'd have fragged you myself just for the hat! flamed 

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
What do you think about this?

I think the source is blatant propaganda, and bears no resemblance news or analysis.
Some sample articles:

• Counting Our Casualities in Iraq
• Dismay Grows Over US Torture School
• No Graceful Exit
• Soldiers of Conscience
• War: Voters Said No, Congress Said Yes

Do you see a trend?

Of course you do. That is why you were reading this rag in the first place. Look, the administration, the military, the USA can be fairly criticised for one thing or another just about any time, but this site that apparently is deemed worthy of YOUR time and attention appears to have NO OTHER interest in the whole wide world.

You do your "cause" no service at all when you post such obviously biased tripe.

That is what I think.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

SlamClick,

Before attacking the source, why don't you address the article at hand. Clearly you don't like what it says so you just attack the magazine. Let's see what "The Nation" is shall we?

***

The Nation (ISSN 0027-8378) is a weekly [1] U.S. periodical devoted to politics and culture, self-described as "the flagship of the left." [2] Founded on July 6, 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. It is published by the Nation Company, L.P. at 33 Irving Place, New York City.

The Nation has bureaus in Budapest, London, and Southern Africa and departments covering Architecture, Art, Corporations, Defense, Environment, Films, Legal Affairs, Music, Peace and Disarmament, Poetry, and the United Nations. The circulation of The Nation is rising and was last placed at 184,296 (2004), surpassing the New Democrat The New Republic, the neoconservative The Weekly Standard, and the conservative National Review (circulation 155,584). The Nation magazine has lost money in all but three or four years of operation and is sustained in part by a group of more than 25,000 donors called The Nation Associates who donate funds to the periodical above and beyond their annual subscription fees.

The publisher and editor of The Nation is Katrina vanden Heuvel. Former editors include Victor Navasky, Norman Thomas (associate editor), Carey McWilliams, and Freda Kirchwey. Notable contributors to The Nation have included Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gore Vidal, Hunter S. Thompson, Langston Hughes, Ralph Nader, James Baldwin, Clement Greenberg, Daniel Singer, I.F. Stone, and Jean-Paul Sartre.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation

***

Still a rag? And show me how any of those article headlines you posted are propoganda and not reported fact.

ANC,

Clearly this isn't a large percentage, but I see it as a high number of soldiers. Also, what about the comparison of the dissent in this war and the Vietnam war, a clearly unpopular war?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
Still a rag?

YES!!!!



Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
self-described as "the flagship of the left

Cinched it right there.

[Edited 2006-12-16 23:03:38]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
ANC,

Clearly this isn't a large percentage, but I see it as a high number of soldiers. Also, what about the comparison of the dissent in this war and the Vietnam war, a clearly unpopular war?

Truth be told, it is NOT a high number of soldiers. In real numbers, it doesn't even amount to a heavy battalion sized element. . . it's simply a drop in the bucket. It's a sensationalized piece of work tossing out the number ONE THOUSAND like it's some grandious number and the military is about to revolt. Truthfully, it's nothing. A thousand pissed off soldiers! Is that all??? Hell, man, walk through any military base - here or there - and I guarantee you a similar result.

It truly is nothing.

As for the comparison with 'Nam, that's simply hogwash. More agrandizing by the self proclaimed left wing rag . . . . pure and simple. Can't spell it out any plainer than that.

Bottom line: Worthless propganda.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
Still a rag?

Yes.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
self-described as "the flagship of the left."

I don't care if it is the "left" or the "right" anyone proclaiming themselves to be a voice of one side or the other is a rag and should not be confused with a newspaper or a magazine or with serious journalism.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
show me how any of those article headlines you posted are propoganda and not reported fact

Almost 100% of all effective propaganda is based in facts. The only thing that is altered is context, significance, original intent, causality. Either side in any argument can marshal "facts" into its service.

Merit in political analysis must begin with the willingness to listen to both sides and evaluate these things. In proclaiming itself to be "of the left" this organization is declaring that all possible future utterances and motives of all other political leanings are without virtue. They are declaring that their minds are made up in favor of "the left" and that additional facts or opinions will not be considered.

I am somewhat conservative but I would not waste my time listening to, or reading sources that described themselves as "conservative" or "right" leaning. What is the point? You already know what their conclusions are going to be AND THEY PROVED AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT HERE. This story is about NOTHING.

The website you linked is of precisely the same value as the Rush Limbaugh show. It is just on the opposite side of the same dunghill.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1188 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
What do you think about this?

It may be to be expected in a free nation that military personnel will express their opinions. Nevertheless, a dispassionate review of U.S. policies is needed.

It may be necessary for the United States to engage in greater, not lesser, involvement in Iraq, and perhaps dissent on this score should be examined accordingly.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Many of the soldiers who are supporting this dissent group may be those who have had a lot of bad experiences in Iraq or are frustrated with the inability to deal with a enemy you cannot identify and where most don't want you there. Probably many in it have had too many close calls or lost friends to IED's, on their 3rd tour and may have to face a 4th, family members or themselves terribly stressed out from the threats and deaths there, Some are probably Reservists or National Guard members and joined the military for educational money, may have family members in poverty as not there to provide a decent income and medical benefits, may not have a decent job to go home to or end up with horrible disabilities and lifelong pain from their service.
I suspect that this dissent group will grow until we get out of Iraq or the miltary services take those that sign up and penalize them in a court martial or being sent back to Iraq with more dangerous assignments.


User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1142 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
No it isn't, but NOT for the reasons you stipulate. You underestimate the American serviceperson, and you short sheet them and their intelligence all in one post. Well done.

I did all that? And all I said was "they thought they were going in there for WMDs".. I mean, didn't they? I sure did. And so did the president *cough*

[Edited 2006-12-17 04:52:53]

User currently offlineNWOrientDC10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
We've got 140,000 troops on the ground over there, another million or so been there done that, in all branches of the military, so we're talking about what .001% here . . .



Are the 0.001% not entitled to their opinions?

Merry Christmas  santahat 

Russell



Things aren't always as they seem
User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

Quoting NWOrientDC10 (Reply 12):
Are the 0.001% not entitled to their opinions?

Sure they are, but I bet you get a higher % that still think Elvis is alive.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1083 times:

Quoting NWOrientDC10 (Reply 12):
Are the 0.001% not entitled to their opinions?

Absolutely they are.

The is not that they have an opinion . . .. the point is that that small percentage is not as big a deal as perhaps some left wing rag, or bleeding heart liberal would suggest . . . .

In fact, I find it not surprising. In fact, I find it quite normal.

Much ado about - well - nothing. A certain percentage of every employer will in fact have dissent in the ranks. I'll bet real US $$$ right now that if you asked any air carrier employees, be they rampers, CSA, F/A or flight deck crew, whether they are satisfied with their employment the percentage will be incredibly higher!


User currently offlineNWOrientDC10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 14):
Absolutely they are.

 checkmark 

Merry Christmas  santahat 

Russell



Things aren't always as they seem
User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1041 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
Founded on July 6, 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. It is published by the Nation Company, L.P. at 33 Irving Place, New York City.

A little late considering the Civil War was over in April 1865.



You're only as good as your last departure.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Gas Prices Rising In Your Area? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 10:39:06 by NWDC10
What Branch Of The Military Are You? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 23:09:19 by Gkirk
Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible posted Sun Nov 19 2006 23:12:33 by Dtwclipper
Military Times Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation posted Sat Nov 4 2006 02:21:01 by Rsmith6621a
Soviet Military Intelligence posted Sun Oct 22 2006 06:43:00 by NWOrientDC10
There Are Truly Beautiful Girls In The Military! posted Thu Oct 19 2006 02:30:41 by Alberchico
Do (or Should) Civilians Control The Military? posted Sat Oct 7 2006 00:00:08 by Connies4ever
Musharraf Downplays Canadian Military Deaths posted Wed Sep 27 2006 08:30:22 by SKYSERVICE_330
Military Retirees, Invol Discharged, Would You? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 01:34:42 by Jetjack74
Military High Schools - Any Experiences? posted Thu Sep 14 2006 13:01:06 by ORFflyer